Media outlets access enhanced multi-platform content at no charge, with alerts when we have new content on issues or from regions you may select. Once we receive the filled out form below, you'll receive a message with the passcode/s. Welcome!

*These fields are required

*Media Outlet name

*Media Outlet City/State

Contact name

Contact phone

*Email address or fax #

*Media Outlet type

Additional (beyond the state you are located in) content that you would like to receive

Newscasts

PNS Daily Newscast - May 24, 2019

President Trump's reported to be ready to sign disaster relief bill without money for border security. Also on the Friday rundown: House bills would give millions a path to citizenship; and remembering California’s second-deadliest disaster.

According to the lawsuit, of Pruitt's 18 new appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board, seven are now employed by industries the EPA regulates, four have a history of taking money from polluters and five have histories of rejecting mainstream science in favor of industry talking points.

Neil Gormley, staff attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice, says ironically, Pruitt claims the academic scientists are being removed because they have financial ties to the EPA.

"By barring people just because they've received competitive research grants from the agency, they're pushing out some of the most qualified experts," he says.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., calls the policy an illegal override of federal ethics rules that will introduce a pro-polluter bias in EPA decisions.

Environmentalists fear that the new appointees also will undermine the integrity of EPA science. Gormley points out that some of the replacements on the advisory board have espoused opinions that fall into the category of junk science.

"Claiming that air pollution is good for you or denying that smog causes asthma - ideas that are way outside the scientific mainstream and that just serve a corporate agenda," he explains.

He says the scientists being removed from the board are experts in fields such as cancer, children's health, respiratory diseases and the risks of chemicals in the home.

Gormley says the lawsuit asks the court to rule that the new policy is unlawful and arbitrary, and to halt the discharge of scientists on the basis of having received agency funding for their work.

"We're also asking for the reinstatement of discharged scientists to these science boards to restore their ability to render objective, high-quality scientific advice to the agency," he adds.